Scotus: guns and association

The US Supreme Court provided two decisions by close margin that are stimulating a lot of discussion.

The decision that the Bill of Rights applies to states hits opposition in those folks who are fearful of guns. The arguments they use seem to pick and choose which items of the Bill of Rights belong to individuals and which can be subject to local supersedence. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Bill of Rights is either entirely about the rights of all U.S. citizens or it is not as it was presented and adopted as a single entity. SCOTUS used two different arguments to affirm that states do not have the powers to override the individual rights listed.

A second decision allowed a university to deny funding to a student group that wanted to disqualify as members those who did not agree with its religious values. There was some note that the organization could disqualify those who wanted to destroy it from within as a peon to the rights of association but, somehow, that was separated from being able to prevent those whose views and values were antithetical to the organization from becoming members. This was like saying it was OK to boil the frog by the slow water heating method but not by dropping the frog in boiling water.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of both of these decisions was the narrow margins. Are these issues really that nuances in the legal sense?

Comments are closed.